One outcome framework
Campuses are measured against the same outcome definitions, so results can be compared.
Last updated:
Campuses are measured against the same outcome definitions, so results can be compared.
A support need on the same outcome across several schools stands out in the institution summary.
Support given and what followed stay with the student, even after a change of teacher.
Grade 7 · Operations with fractions
| Campus | Level | Support plan |
|---|---|---|
| Campus 1 | Needs support | In progress |
| Campus 2 | Partial | Planned |
| Campus 3 | Needs support | Pending |
| Campus 4 | Proficient | — |
The same outcome needs support at 3 campuses · shared plan suggestion ready
Sees which classes and subjects have a concentrated need for support, and whether planned support has actually happened.
Makes this easier: What comes first at the department meeting.
Follows where the same outcome keeps showing a need for support across schools, with a student history that survives a change of teacher.
Makes this easier: A shared support plan and where to put resources.
The institution server or the cloud is chosen by your data policy and operating capacity; the institution server is a common choice for groups.
No. There is no view that ranks schools by performance. The aim is to see a support need that repeats on the same outcome and plan together.
You define your own outcome framework. Campuses can share a common one, and campus-specific outcomes can be added.
The choice depends less on group size than on your data policy and operating capacity. With the institution server, installation and data sit on your own server; licence and transfer terms are detailed in the enterprise agreement.
The pilot covers outcome mapping, a first report, support in practice and a comparable re-check. Scope and success criteria are written down before it starts.